My new favorite book of all time

My qualm is a bit more involved than just the centralization of force. It has to do with whether or not the causes of violence are decreasing, or whether or not we're observing a temporary reduction in the overt displays of violence while the causes are left to grow in the background. In chemical terms, have we created buffering conditions for violence equilibria? If so, what happens the moment we cross the threshold.

That said, Pinker himself heavily downplays the 'Leviathan' effect in interviews, debates and responses to criticisms, and bothers very little to examine what it means, especially because if the Leviathan is the primary force in quashing violence, then the rest of his project - in demonstrating the progress of mankind - is actively hampered.

From [2]: "By January 1945, between 85% and 90% of the buildings had been completely destroyed; this includes up to 10% as a result of the September 1939 campaign and following combat, up to 15% during the earlier Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, 25% during the Uprising, and 40% due to systematic German demolition of city after the uprising"

It's not me underestimating the scale of destruction of Dresden, but rather you underestimating the scale of destruction in other cities.

[1] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bombing_of_Dresden...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_destruction_of_Warsaw

Let me put it this way: if everyone in the human race was so rich that they owned an entire planet full of machines that cater to their every whim, then there might still be people who are "rich" and own thousands of planets. Does that wealth inequality matter? No, it doesn't, because you're still so rich you own a goddamn planet! People who own planets have no reason to be indignant.

The same is true in our world. The only thing that should really matter to people is how well off they are absolutely. Anything more than that is simply coveting other people's wealth. In America, it turns out that even people who are considered "poor" by the government are well off by material possessions:

https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/air-c...

> As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.” In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

> The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

Frankly, this looks to me like Pinker is reasoning from a provably false premise. Non-nuclear powers haven't avoided war.

The Congo War killed ~4 million people, including 300,000+ via direct killings. The Yugoslav Wars killed 100,000+. The Second Gulf War, 400,000 deaths, 100,000+ from direct killings. The Syrian Civil War is 400k and counting.

The rejoinder, I suppose, is that Canada and Spain is a first-world example and none of my are. I don't buy it. First, because the use of proxy wars is a defining feature of 20th century combat; war in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Syria is directly linked to great-power conflict. Second, because Pinker's example is a silly one; both because war over flatfish would have been a money-loser and because Canada and Spain are NATO signatories operating under the nuclear shield of other nations. Shooting war between NATO member states is regularly described as a nightmare scenario that would escalate nuclear tensions worldwide; Pinker is naively or dishonestly equating "owning no nukes" with "lacking nuclear defense".

Pinker has been repeatedly criticized for his focus on combat deaths, and with good reason. The technological advances of war have shifted the balance of casualties from combatants to civilians, and increased the fat-tail risk of escalating conflicts. This is another iteration of the same.

As for nuclear weapons being "disproportionate to any strategic goal" and "for all practical purposes a bluff"... I hope to god he's right, but tactical nuclear weapon use is back on the table in Russia and strategists don't seem to agree with him.